Less than Amazing

My Facebook feed pointed me to a new post by Michael Prescott after he picked up a copy of "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural", by James Randi. Prescott shows how Randi uses the same old sleight-of-hand techniques to deceive his readers into thinking he is presenting some sort of well researched and authoritative reference when all he is doing is expressing biased skepticism throughout, with little supporting argument or evidence. 

What strikes me, as I read Prescott's piece, is the hypocrisy of skeptics both in the community at large and on this forum and Skeptiko in particular. Proponents have to endure sneers about taking seriously the research and claims of people such as Sheldrake or Radin while the skeptical community continues its avid support of Randi, a self-confessed liar. I believe one of our members was (perhaps still is?) a fund raiser for one of Randi's enterprises. Yet, as the well researched article in The Daily Telegraph shows, Randi is a fraud. Alas his followers fail to apply a modicum of skepticism when it comes to his mendacity.

Following a burst of publicity for Sheldrake, Randi told a journalist, “We at JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” But when I met Sheldrake, at his Hampstead home, he made a serious charge. “Randi’s a liar and a cheat,” he said. “When I asked him for the data, he had to admit he hadn’t done any tests.”

Back to Prescott, the main thrust of his post is directed at the lack of substance in a book presented as an "encyclopedia". The "sleight-of-hand" I mentioned is described in various paragraphs such as this one:

The most notable thing about it is that a great deal of the content is devoted to subjects that are hardly controversial at all. Randi spends many pages on obvious fakes and frauds, some of them dating back to the Middle Ages or even earlier – people and movements no one would defend or even remember today.

...

Now you might say, What's the problem? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia of frauds and hoaxes, right? True enough ... but the problem is that these extended entries on obscure or long-debunked topics serve as cover for the superficial or nonexistent treatment of far more challenging topics.

The point is reinforced when it comes to the entries on mediums:

And this is a book that's described on Amazon's sales page as "examin[ing] the shady world of manipulators, occultists, and shamanists in microscopic detail." Microscopic detail? When it comes to the more serious topics, there is little or no detail at all. 

Just look at the entry on Eileen Garrett, one of the most famous mediums of the 20th century, known for the R-101 case, among others. Well, let me rephrase that. You can't look at the entry, because there is none. Garrett is never mentioned. She doesn't even appear in the index. 

The mans a fookin cartoon character.
(And apparently a fairly capable salesman.)

My Facebook feed pointed me to a new post by Michael Prescott

I didn't find it via facebook, but from a recent post on PsienceQuest. Admittedly, Chris did find it from a FB reference.

[Laird]

I didn't find it via facebook, but from a recent post on PsienceQuest. Admittedly, Chris did find it from a FB reference.

And so the fbclid parameter strikes the duplicate link warner plugin once again...

I didn't find it via facebook, but from a recent post on PsienceQuest. Admittedly, Chris did find it from a FB reference.

Ahh - sorry, I didn't spot that.

JREF’s “Amazing Meeting” Not so Amazing

Ted Dace

...Even scientists themselves, it turns out, are no match for the diabolical paranormalists. Only skeptics, educated by James “Amazing” Randi and other magicians, are capable of spotting the tricks of the trade. “Scientists are easily fooled,” explained Randi, “because they think they know.” But only skeptics really know.

Communicating Skepticism to the Public, the manual handed out at the media workshop, contains a brief passage that illustrates the gulf between science and the skeptics. In part three, “The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude,” we learn how to become a media authority: “Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not.”

As we know, it works a little differently in science. You can’t just say you’re an expert in, say, paleoanthropology unless you’ve actually done the work, either at an accredited university or on your own. By contrast, a skeptic need only form a club with like-minded people. “As head of your local skeptic club, you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.”